51
Messages
This section allows you to view all Messages made by this member. Note that you can only see Messages made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - William Ashworth
52
General Discussion / Re: NWC on Facebook
53
Object Plugins / Re: TempoEquation.ms 0.1
54
Object Plugins / Re: TempoEquation.ms 0.1
55
General Discussion / Re: Accent and tenuto
56
General Discussion / Re: Staves do not always get assigned to stereo channels properly.
57
General Discussion / Re: Producing a "jazzy" feel
For single = single, I know there can sometimes be confusion as to which side of the equation relates to which part of the score...
I believe the original convention was:
"new time value" = "old time value", but
current convention now seems to be:
"old time value" = "new time value".
Gould ("Behind Bars") clarifies this. Current practice is to center the = over the barline and place the time values over the measures they apply to. That makes it old = new. However, it would probably be wise to have an option to notate old scores in the old way, for those who value history. That would be with the entire equation placed after the barline (over the new measure) and the order of tempi reversed, to new=old. ("Old", by the way, means roughly before 1950.)
58
General Discussion / Re: Where is "In Port" on Options/Record tab?
59
General Discussion / Re: Spacing out endings
In some places a glissando is requested with the following notes: Ab, B#, Cn, Db, E#, Fn, Gn.
60
General Discussion / Re: Spacing out endings
The meaning for this for glissandi on harps is that you can have only seven notes per octave, and for any given tuning those seven notes will be the same seven notes in every octave, BUT the chromatic position of each of those seven notes is independent of all of the others. Harpists make a lot of use of enharmonics: you can have a C and a C# in the same tuning, for example, but only if there are no Ds in the tuning, because the C# that everyone else in the ensemble is playing will have to be spelled as Db on the harp. Cb and Fb, and B# and E#, are common in harp writing for that reason.
The bottom line, here, is that every glissando on the harp will have to have one, and only one, of the chromatic spellings of every pitch class; and that the particular grouping of chromatics being used for a given gliss has little or no relationship to the scale or mode the music is in. Every tuning on the harp is basically an artificial scale. So it would be really, really nice if your glissando object could tune each pitch class individually - to match the current tuning of the harp.
I just kind of jotted this explanation down, so let me know if any of it remains unclear.
61
General Discussion / Re: Spacing out endings
62
General Discussion / Re: Feature request: adding chord notes quickly by selecting name of the chord
63
General Discussion / Re: Chords - editing individual notes in a chord
64
General Discussion / Re: With a little help from my friends...
65
General Discussion / Re: 2nd verse same as the 1st (apologies to Herman's Hermits)
66
General Discussion / Re: tie in syllables
67
General Discussion / Staff boundary discrepancies
On the piano piece I'm currently working on, I have the boundaries set in "Staff Properties" at 18 above and 12 below (right hand staff) and 10 above and 18 below (left hand staff). The actual boundaries, as shown by the shaded space on the active staff and confirmed by the boundary offset figures in the "Notation Properties" box, are 14 above and 8 below (right hand) and 6 above and 14 below (left hand) - a discrepancy of four units in each case.
I suspect that the problem is that "Staff Properties" measures from the center of the staff and "Notation Properties" measures from the upper and lower staff lines. Whatever the cause, it would be nice if the two dialog boxes could be brought into conformity with each other.
68
General Discussion / Re: text position
I had a hard time finding it also, until I realized it is actually named GlobMod.og.
69
General Discussion / Re: Changing the Font Size
70
General Discussion / Re: text position
71
General Discussion / Re: Composing for Harp and Flute Tips
E F G A
D C B
With appropriate accidentals, of course. I've also seen it on one line, with a separator: D C# B | E F# G A
If you have access to Elaine Gould's book, the complete instructions are on pp. 355-57. Basically, her advice is to write just the letter name and accidental (e.g., C#) for a single accidental change, at the time the new accidental is needed. She also suggests writing the complete current pedal settings at the top of each new page and at each rehearsal letter.
72
General Discussion / Re: Composing for Harp and Flute Tips
73
General Discussion / Re: Composing for Harp and Flute Tips
A couple of thoughts. First, always remember that the harp is a diatonic instrument. There are always only seven pitch classes available. The pedals allow you to get any conceivable accidental, but each pedal controls ALL the strings of its pitch class, so you can't do, e.g., a G in one octave and a G# in another. Second, changing pedals requires time, so rapid passagework can't contain two different flavors of the same pitch class. Third, harpists use only four fingers on each hand - the little finger can't actually reach the strings when the hand is in playing position - so you can't write five-finger chords or arpeggios. Fourth, the low strings require a slightly different seating position due to their distance from the performer, and that makes playing the upper strings awkward, so you have to watch that the spacing between the hands doesn't get too large. Fifth, the harp does well as a melody instrument, but unless the melody is extremely simple it is likely to require both hands, so accompanying chords have to be fit in around the melody notes - it's not just one hand playing melody and the other accompanying.
You begin to get the idea. Really, sit down with a harpist.
74
General Discussion / Re: Printing as an image file
75
General Discussion / That Other Program....
76
General Discussion / Re: Flow direction Errors
77
General Discussion / Re: MIDI controllers/effects
78
General Discussion / Re: Resetting a custom selector to default
79
General Discussion / Resetting a custom selector to default
80
General Discussion / Re: How can I print comments, credits, etc.
81
General Discussion / Re: Support???
I am very happy with a product which needs no changes. I think that it is very wrong to expect that a software is updated often.
I fully agree. I also agree that, for my purposes, NWC is the best thing out there. I've been fooling around with MuseScore, and while it is very powerful and makes nice-looking scores, the UI is awful - NWC's is much better, and NWC is also very powerful and makes nice-looking scores. I have friends, too, who sing the praises of Dorico. Most of those praises have to do with the way the interface improves upon Finale and Sibelius, including - wait for it! - an insert mode! Which I always have to point out that NWC has had for many, many years. At $50 instead of $600.
However, NWC is not a "product that needs no changes." It still has flaws, some of them fairly serious, and while many of these have been taken care of by user objects, and I have yet to meet anything that can't be worked around in some manner, it would be easier for me to sell it in places like the Music Engraver's Page on Facebook - I mentioned it there just today - if the more glaring of these flaws were addressed by changes to the program. Pedal lines, 8va lines and cue staves should be native, to name three commonly-used notations that are currently taken care of by user objects, with varying degrees of ease and accuracy. n-tuplets would be nice. The collisions that take place between dynamics and hairpins are annoying, and the beam anti-aliasing is lumpy compared to the competition, making scores look less professional than they might. I could go on, but you get the idea. It is really time to address some of this stuff.
Mind you, I'm not planning to switch to Dorico, or even MuseScore, any time soon. I love NWC and will undoubtedly stick with it until it dies or I do. It's just that it could be significantly better. Facebook's MEP (Music Engravers Page) is pretty heavily used. Someone did a survey there recently to find out what software was currently in use by regular posters. Probably 50 of us responded. I was the only NWC user. That number could be much higher if some of the product's current shortcomings were taken care of. I'm tired of Dorico users trying to sell me on their baby. I'd love it if I could sell them on mine.
82
General Discussion / Re: Support???
83
Object Plugins / Re: AllNotesOff.ms (0.1)
Mike, thanks for the possible fix via the one-line change in the lua code. Unfortunately, it didn't work. Looks like I'm stuck with the layers kludge, which is a PITA, but which does work. Thanks for trying....
Bill
84
Object Plugins / Re: AllNotesOff.ms (0.1)
85
Object Plugins / Re: Arpeggio.ms (2.0c)
86
Object Plugins / Re: Arpeggio.ms (2.0c)
87
Object Plugins / Re: Arpeggio.ms (2.0c)
And related to THAT is the fact that the note with the incoming tie (in yesterday's example) doesn't receive a noteOff until the next time a note is sounded at that pitch, even if the staff isn't muted. In that case, I get a bright little ghost note instead of a ghost chord when I start play after the arpeggio. Apparently the object depends on NWC to send a noteOff, and NWC thinks it doesn't need to send one because the note has been muted.
I was postponing the creation of the second layer, but I guess I'd better get to that right now....
EDIT: the new layer didn't help. The ghost chord still sounds. Evidently no noteOff is being sent with the ties present, whether or not anything is muted.
EDIT 2: removing the ties from the arpeggiated chord on the new layer has eliminated the ghost chord. The ties from the muted chord in the original layer still work to carry the sound over, even though they are on a different layer from the sounded chord (well, they're assigned to the same MIDI channel). Crisis averted for now.
88
Object Plugins / Re: Arpeggio.ms (2.0c)
89
Object Plugins / Re: Arpeggio.ms (2.0c)
Small problem with the Arpeggio object, shown in this clip from the accompaniment to a song I'm working on:
Code: [Select · Download]
!NoteWorthyComposerClip(2.751,Single)
|Clef|Type:Treble
|Instrument|Name:"Acoustic Grand Piano"|Patch:0|Trans:0|DynVel:10,30,45,60,75,92,108,127|Pos:16.5
|Note|Dur:Half,Dotted,Slur|Pos:8^|Opts:Stem=Down
|Bar
|Dynamic|Style:p|Pos:-9|Justify:Center|Placement:AtNextNote
|User|Arpeggio.ms|Pos:-4
|Chord|Dur:Half,Dotted|Pos:8^|Opts:Stem=Up,Muted|Dur2:Half,Dotted|Pos2:-3^,-1^,1^,b3^
|Bar
|TimeSig|Signature:12/8
|TempoVariance|Style:Fermata|Pause:0|Pos:14.5|Justify:Center|Placement:AtNextNote
|Chord|Dur:Whole,Dotted|Pos:8|Opts:Stem=Up|Dur2:Whole,Dotted|Pos2:-3,-1,1,3
!NoteWorthyComposerClip-End
The arpeggio should only apply to the new notes in the second measure (the F4 through the Eb5); it shouldn't extend to the tied C6 from the previous measure. I can fix this with a layer, of course, but I don't think I should need to. A fix would be appreciated.
Thanks,
Bill
90
General Discussion / Re: Hidden Staffs
91
General Discussion / Re: Chord member spacing
I didn’t know that. It’s another advantage of nwc. Do you have that one in your blog post?
92
General Discussion / Re: Chord member spacing
93
General Discussion / Re: Quintuplets?
Code: [Select · Download]
!NoteWorthyComposerClip(2.751,Single)
|Clef|Type:Treble
|Tempo|Tempo:120|Pos:9
|TimeSig|Signature:4/4
|Note|Dur:4th,Slur|Pos:-1
|Note|Dur:4th|Pos:-3
|Note|Dur:4th|Pos:-2
|Note|Dur:4th|Pos:-1
|Bar
|TimeSig|Signature:5/4|Visibility:Never
|Tempo|Tempo:150|Pos:10|Visibility:Never
|User|TupletMarks.fso|Pos:5|span:5|number:5
|Note|Dur:4th,Slur|Pos:-2
|Note|Dur:4th,Slur|Pos:-1
|Note|Dur:4th,Slur|Pos:0
|Note|Dur:4th,Slur|Pos:1
|Note|Dur:4th,Slur|Pos:2
|Bar
|TimeSig|Signature:4/4|Visibility:Never
|Tempo|Tempo:120|Pos:9|Visibility:Never
|Note|Dur:Whole|Pos:3
!NoteWorthyComposerClip-End
You need to have the user object tupletmarks.fso installed. The tempo change is figured by multiplying the regular tempo by the value of the tuplet (e.g., in this case we have 5 notes in the time of 4, so you need to multiply the regular tempo by 5/4). Note that this is not necessarily the same as the hidden time sig, although it is in this case. However, if your quintuplet was 5 8th notes in the time of a half note in 4/4 rhythm, you'd still need to multiply by 5/4, because it would still be 5 notes in the time of 4 (5 8ths in the time of 4 8ths).
94
General Discussion / Re: Layering keyboard shortcut
95
General Discussion / Re: New Strange Sound Issue
HTH
Bill
96
General Discussion / Re: New Strange Sound Issue
97
General Discussion / Re: Double Bar Line Problems
98
User Tools / Re: "Remove following rests of same length" user tool (0.1)
99
General Discussion / Re: My (new, and long) NWC wishlist
100